2 Samuel 16:9,11 - "Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head...let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord hath bidden him."

Matthew 7:15 - “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

Matthew 24:11 - “…and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.”

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Lawsuit Settled with Eye Toward Making Positive Changes

Yesterday was an important day in the just over 3-year life of the FBC Jax Watchdog blog.

My lawyers and I have reached a settlement in the 1 ½ year long lawsuit against the city of Jacksonville and the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office (JSO) detective and Assistant State Attorney involved in issuance of subpoenas on my blog back in October 2008 (for background, click here, here, and here).

The monetary settlement was for $50,000 representing the damages we have incurred from the actions of the JSO officer and Assistant State Attorney in unmasking my identity as the Watchdog blogger through subpoena power, and the ensuing banishment from our church – but much more important than the financial settlement is that the settlement agreement includes a commitment on the part of the city, specifically Sheriff John Rutherford, to make positive changes at the JSO stemming from the circumstances that led to this lawsuit.

In our agreement with the city, the Sheriff has agreed to a meeting with myself, my lawyers, and the city’s legal counsel to discuss important ethical issues that have arisen from this case, and to consider our input on changes that can be made in the JSO’s conflict of interest code for its detectives. Additionally, the Sheriff and the Office of General Counsel have agreed to develop and implement a training program for JSO detectives specifically on constitutional First Amendment issues and legal ramifications that must be considered when issuing investigative subpoenas.

We are extremely pleased with this settlement, and believe that the lawsuit and its settlement will serve the interests of the citizens of Jacksonville through a strengthening of the JSO’s ethical policies and training provided to detectives on constitutional First Amendment issues. We are very grateful to Sheriff Rutherford in agreeing to meet with us personally to address these issues, and think this is an example of excellent governmental leadership on his part.

I will have more to say in the future concerning the case, the litigation and the implications of the case to mega churches, etc. But this will be in the future – for now we will focus on our meeting with Sheriff Rutherford to try to help effect real change at the JSO for the betterment of Jacksonville.

God bless you Watchdog (Tom Rich), Yvette and your family for your perseverance and tenacity in seeking positive changes to this ordeal. I hope this sends a message to all the government and churches in attempting to stifle anonymous speech via the forcible revealing of the authors of anonymous speech.

"As part of the settlement, are any of the defendants admitting fault? Or do they still maintain that they did nothing wrong?"

No admission of wrong doing. I don't think we reasonably expected that as part of any settlement or even a court victory. But what we got was better: a committment to make some level of change to prevent this from happening again.

Yo Cousin! Good news. I always believed the outcome would be a positive for you. So, one part down with one to go. The rest of this will be very interesting - very interesting indeed.

One has to wonder about the effect this will have upon your suit against FBCJ? JSO, while admitting no wrong doing, has more or less, by default, admitted to recognizing their detective could have done better.

I would think, that such a default admission could be played, by any decent lawyer, into points for you against FBCJ. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Did you settle for the good of the people or for the $50,000.00 and your lawyers satisfaction.

That is chump change for these that KNOW they were wrong and who not only violated YOUR rights but mine too.

I wish you would have beat that horse a lot more and not allowed them off so easy. I was hoping for a Supreme Court judgment so that us bloggers in our mothers basements could know our rights are protected.

Now I am back in my housecoat wondering if I you are my hero anymore.

Seriously, please don't allow MAC and his disciples to water down what they did to you and your family!

Dr. Who - I can appreciate your concerns. I'll have more to say on this later.

For the time being you'll just have to believe that this settlement met the objectives I set out to accomplish when we started, and it was the best option for us, given many, many factors. My wife and I have lived this for 1 1/2 years, been at every deposition, and you'll just have to trust me that this was the best resolution for us that serves my purposes and I believe the interests of Jacksonville citizens. People who have not been through a contentious lawsuit like this, can appreciate the factors that go into a settlement. This is not about "chump change" or "beating that horse for more" or what is best for a lawyer, or about winning in the Supreme Court. I find your comment just a bit offensive in that regard, but that's ok, I don't expect you to fully understand at this point.

For now we will focus on our meeting with Sheriff Rutherford, and hope to effect change in our local JSO to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

And I'm nobody's hero, and have never set out to be one.

But you can blog in your housecoat, as we have a first amendment and we have a legal system where even the little guy underdog can hold the big boys accountable.

This is a great settlement. It is not "chump change" and it is reasonable, given that the taxpayers are either immediately or eventually (through insurance fees) the ultimate payors. The reworking of policies and procedures is a great outcome.

Keep after the big money guy. Shoot for at least one additional zero and insist that it come from his personal accounts, at least a majority of it.

"I have lived this for 1 1/2 years, been at every deposition, and you'll just have to trust me that this was the best resolution"

That is my point, why stop when you and your family have been through so much?

I do understand your being offended at my comment, but it was NOT meant an attack or anything of the such, just a thought and a sharing of MY disappointment, and I am nothing but a basement blogger in my housecoat.

We have all done it though, got to that point and was so worn out, we accepted whatever came so that our minds could rest.

That is what happens to these men who are trained on these types of negotiations experiences, wear em out!

But NOT me, Never!

I know to much about these Pharisees and TARES and how they operate. I have had a wonderful teacher.

Dr WhoNot to be answering for WD but realistically he has accomplished about all that could be expected. Frankly, I am amazed he was able to accomplish this much. Good Dog!$50,000 in a suit like this is unheard of and the fact that he is able to discuss the settlement is even more astounding.

WD- I have followed your blog for quite some time now. I agree with many of your positions on things involving the church, especially when it comes to the Building Fund, and the financial mismanagement that appears to be at play at FBC.

However, it makes me wonder if you feel you accomplished what you apparently set out to accomplish by filing this lawsuit. Did you truly want to use this as a platform to stand up for those whose first-amendment rights are violated? You indicate "the monetary settlement was for $50,000, representing the damages we have incurred from the actions of the JSO officer and Assistant State Attorney in unmasking my identity as the Watchdog blogger through subpoena power, and the ensuing banishment from our church."

Did you lose $50,000 by being unmasked as the blogger? Were you profiting financially from having anonymity on this forum? Or, does $50,000 equal payment for the "mental anguish" you experienced by having to actually take personal responsibility for the statements you made in reference to your own house of worship?

Have you considered how God looks upon the actions you are taking in writing this blog and by filing lawsuits over being outed? You use this forum to rant and rave about everything you disagree with, and you have the audacity to toss in references to the Word of God.

Getting back to the lawsuits, I suppose you are "even" with the JSO deputy who handled the investigation in the first place. You've ensured that you were able to drag that guy into what appears to be a personal vendetta against Mac Brunson. I would imagine he has a family, much like yours, that has suffered at the hands of this entire situation.

As I said, I do agree with "some" of your posts. However, I think the manner in which you conduct yourself on this blog is no better than the actions conducted by Brunson, with which you find fault. You seem to feel he is misusing his position as Pastor. Is that really YOUR job to point out? You've compiled lists of things that you feel he has done wrong. Is that your job too? It seems to me that these responsibilities fall to only One. The Good Lord Himself will ensure that if someone is misusing the pulpit, they will be judged accordingly.

While you attempted to hide behind your blog, casting not stones, but boulders, have you ever considered what your personal faults are? What if someone was to blog about you?

How long will you continue your monitoring of the church? You're not a member there anymore, no matter how wrong that is, so, why not move on? Are you truly growing in your walk with Christ by continuing to put so much effort into espousing your beliefs about that church?

What is the end goal here? Do you want to get Brunson kicked out of FBC? Do you want to tarnish that church so much that lost souls who may find Christ by attending there are driven away instead? Do you want to get some of that money that those who tithe, no matter how much you agree/disagree with it, have given in their personal belief that they are giving it back to God? Should those who give only what they can give towards support mission work and the other good works that go on (that you don't recognize), or instead towards paying the lottery you seek to win by suing a House of God?

Obviously you will spend plenty of time firing back at my comments. Your fervent supporters will tear down my opinions. But, as you "proved" by "winning" $50,000, we each have the first-amendment right to the freedom of speech. So, since I'm a taxpayer who is paying for yours, I may as well use my own.

Congrats Bro. Rich. I found this most disturbing from the Brumley article in the Times Union.

"Another accomplishment was learning more about the interaction between Hinson and church leaders that led to the investigation. The fact that Hinson was a deacon and member of the disciplinary committee were not previously known to him", Rich said.

"Do you want to tarnish that church so much that lost souls who may find Christ by attending there are driven away instead?"Do you know how many souls are being lost because of the the failures of the churches' leaders? Not just at FBC but all over this country. Not to mention a church is probably one of the worst places to expect a lost soul to come to Christ. Think about it, it's like being in a foreign country and the so called seeker friendly churches are the worst. all those people dancing around with their faces looking like they are in severe pain and raising their hands. What's that about. Do they need the preacher permission to go to the bathroom?

Great news on the current settlement, and continued success on the rest of your lawsuit. I want to thank you, your family and especially your supportive wife, for continuing to see this through despite the personal cost in your lives. Many of us here on your blog are so grateful to you for bringing things into the light and continuing to keep that light on things that need to be exposed. While you may not be a "hero", you are held in admiration by those of us who have learned so much from your efforts. Thank you Tom for standing firm and helping us to learn so much from your blog efforts.

Anon: Obviously you are a First Baptist Church member from the opinions you have expressed in your comments. No amount of money could ever replace the disgrace of the comments that Mac Brunson and Judge Soud said about Mr. Rich that made newspaper front page headlines.

No amount of money could ever replace the humility of being banned from the church property like Mac Brunson and Judge Soud did to Mrs. Rich, who was undeserving of their action.

As others have expressed God bless the Rich family, for standing firm not just for themselves but for the rest of us who have believed in their 1st amendment rights. As Br/Min Rod said, it's both a sad and happy day. It's never been about money, but the pain a Senior Pastor showed the community the true character of how First Baptist treats their people.

Anon 6:36" I suppose you are "even" with the JSO deputy who hand led the investigation in the first place. You've ensured that you were able to drag that guy into what appears to be a personal vendetta against Mac Brunson."

I understand what you are saying but the JSO deputy is responisble for his actions. If he was following the request of higher ups then it is not his fault if he had the correct paper work. Through this process our justice system did what it was suppose to do. A 1 1/2 litigation and 50 grand, Well the odds are that the only people having a payday is the lawyer and Uncle Sam. I think it sends a strong message in the fact that we can no longer neglect the means by which we accomplish our goals as a Pastor. God cares about the journey that gets us the end prize. Pastors got to realize that we have to make sure all are actions are on the up and up even to the point we take a personal loss when it issue that might put a blemish on our character. God is our vendicator not the sword of my tongue works of my hands. It is God. Do I struggle with some stuff on this blog. Yes, I do. Rather you agree with Tom or not you also have to ask an important question. Did Tom set things in motion that caused hardship on the JSO deputy or was there a total lapse in judgement by Mac which caused a ripple effect that caused pain and hardship to multiple lives?

This is wonderful news Tom. I have always known that this was not about you making a financial windfall, but for standing up for truth. You have accomplished that.

For those who are suspect of Tom's motives... any of you know how much lawyers charge for 1 and 1/2 years of fees?

But this comment literally turned my stomach: "I'm sure that you will tithe from your winnings.

Disgusting!"

*************

What I find "disgusting" is churches who purge the rolls if people don't PAY UP! Next they'll be asking for your tax records so you can prove you paid your 10th. Then we'll move right up to getting our own personal 'Temple Recommends' as only those people are worthy of high praise.

My family and I respect your privacy regarding this and we are happy to wait until you decide you want to talk about it. Prayers offered.

Our first amendment rights are more precious than ever. I honor your committment to us all.

CONGRATS!!! Justice is served in this case. I know all parties involved I have stood in your corner as I recognize abuse of power. People should try reading the book The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

Not that you're considering it, but please do proceed with your action against FBCJ (easier for me to say than for you to do, I know!). The matter needs the clarification, generally speaking, and restitution to your family is needed, more specifically. It is important for senior pastors--and all pastors--to learn that they cannot do just whatever they desire, even if retired judges in their membership are urging them to do so. If it is possible to hold-out and not settle in this case, that would be best--and a decision in your favor appears even more likely now.

Signed,

Present Church Pastor and Former Church Administrator (who believes in church done right--by everyone)

Anon "suing the house of God"?. That statement is ridiculous. Watchdog is suing Mr. Brunson as I read the blog. If you had been thrown out of a church and had your wife embarrassed the way his was you might think differently. I believe it a good move on the part of the City of Jacksonville to get this behind them and place their detectives on notice that this type of behavior is totally off base. There is sufficient crime within our city limits without having to invent one. My hat is off to the Sheriff and the counsel for doing the right thing. It should have been done months ago.

Do you really believe that? They just settled out of court in order to not have to admit wrongdoing - but in the end really do admit to it.

As a person who studies organizations and organizational behavior, the Sheriff will take this serious as any Boss in their right mind would never allow another employee to repeat these actions again. Brings disgrace to the organzation and JSO does not need to be disgraced because of ethical/conflict of interest issues. No, the Sherriff will take this serious. He would be a fool not to. If he didn't many probably would remember this at the voting box.

Great news Tom. Many thanks to you and your family for your perseverance. Now on to Part 2!!! By proxy, you represent many of us who have been treated badly by churches and arrogant preachers. God bless you and thanks again for all you do. We will continue to pray for you and yours!

Wonder what God thought of Mac haveing Hinson to get a subpeona and then sending a trespass order? Funny how they destroyed the paperwork after the right amount of time passed and they new the names. Perhaps God wanted them to get subpeona's on Tiffany Croft and BBC, too.

Oh,I forgot. In YOUR "house" of worship, that is perfectly ok.

Be careful about following man, he can lead you right into hell while you are thinking you are 'holy' in your 'house' of worship.

(Too bad your pastor has not taught you that we no longer have 'houses of worship' because now WE are the temple where God resides. I hope someday you will understand that and stop thinking your 'house of worship' is where God resides a few days a week for you to visit)

" No, the Sherriff will take this serious. He would be a fool not to. If he didn't many probably would remember this at the voting box."===============================As a former member of FBCJ I plan to write the Sheriff a personal letter to him to thank him for taking the time to listen to the seriousness of this issue with M/M Rich. Something that should have never happened.

Mac Brunson is nothing but a "Bully Sheriff" in the pulpit @ First Baptist - he has done nothing but build his own personal empire since he came to Jacksonville.

There was a time when one was proud of being a member of FBCJ, but that day is long gone.

I believe it shows in the Bible every time the organized religious groups got the civil authorities to do something to someone who disagreed with them it backfired. Take Daniel for example. There were those that opposed the God of Daniel had him thrown into the lions den. BUT God protected him and those other men were eaten later by the lions. Those men found out it backfired.

The Jewish leaders sent a delegation after Paul and had him arrested and imprisoned. He was released since he was a citizen of Rome and continued the things that God would have him accomplish. Their opposition was of no effect and it backfired.

Peter was thrown into prison for taking a stand, BUT God sent an angel and opened the prison dooors.It backfired on those who opposed the true gospel.

Paul and Silas were jailed for preaching Christ crucified and the Jewish authorities HATCHED A PLAN for their being jailed. BUT, God sent an angel and all the prison doors were thrown open. The jailer got saved. It backfired on those that believed they were serving God.

Then the largest Backfire of them all. The Jewish leaders had Jesus arrested and put into prison. They made up false charges concerning Him and denied Him being who He claimed He to be. BUT, it backfired, and we were saved because of their unbelief. Praise God for all his mercy and grace. I am not comparing Tom with Daniel or Paul. But I am drawing attention to what can happen when "religious" leaders use the world outside of Gods will to accomplish their worldly goals. It backfires. Kudos to our City officials for recognizing a problem and being willing to help correct it. Kudos to Tom for standing against the odds, and for his RIGHTS.

So do the citizens of Jacksonville who will pay the $50,000, get to send the bill to FBCJ in order to get the money back? So far this preacher has cost the citizens of Jax $50,000, while still demanding 10% of their church members gross income. I don't think it was God who brought on this "tribulation". Thank God we still have First Amendment Rights!!!

I wish that the deposition texts and orders and such had been posted along the way so that we could read them and find out what facts were discovered along the way. I realize that as a litigant that you would not want to do that, but it would have been nice. SBC Outposts did that with the SWBTS lawsuit.

But think about it for a moment. If the Dog and his lawyers found out in discovery that what they had alleged was true - that basically there was no probable cause for the Sherrif Department employee to request the information from the Dog's internet provider about his identity, and that the Deputy just did this on his own or was directed by someone to do this at the church, it is wrong.

Apparently, the facts showed that happened. If the police could have made any showing that there was a legitimate basis to get this info (even if FBC Jax would benefit from it) they would have done so.

I am not sure about the First Amendment right to anonymous speech through blogs. I still think that the courts are working through that.

Regardless, we don't want private parties or insitutions, churches or otherwise, to use law enforcement for private purposes. And, again, it's one thing to allege that, and its another thing to have enough proof to show that's what happened. And the proof must have been there (or at least enough proof to make it a question), or else the defendants in this case would have been dismissed on Summary Judgment. Municipalities can often easily get out of lawsuits like this because they have lots of strong legal defenses.

But if facts are discovered that show the municipality or its agents acted inappropriately, those defenses are not effective.

If you think about it for a moment, even if you don't like the Dog personally, you can see that the City and other defendants answering for this is a good thing.

So glad you won this lawsuit! They think they aren't admitting any wrong-doing. Oh but they are!

Can't wait for the outcome of the 2nd lawsuit! I wish there was a way to make Mac Brunson, John Blount & Hinson pay out of their own pockets!!!

There was definitely wrong-doing on the part of the preacher, police & state atty's offices.

I wish Mac Brunson would just go ahead, pack up & leave! He's a guilty man who has not confessed his sin & he's bringing down the church. He better fess up b/c God's reprimand is gonna be a whole lot tougher than any earthly court's could ever be!

We have been at another church for over a year & we love it! Our final decision to leave -- the straw that broke the camel's back actually -- came when Mac Brunson publicly called you names to the TU reporter, Mr. Rich!

What a joke, an absolute joke. Twisting the first amendment for your own personal use. Typically the church cherishes the first amendment in order to be able to preach the WORD, not for personal gain.

You were caught, in a church matter, with your hand in the cookie jar when you went too far in a personal vendetta--spewing hate and bitterness, and implying or maybe even inciting hatred towards public figures, the pastor and his wife. Get over it. And get on with your life.

Public safety should always trump private speech. That's what happened here and hopefully the next court won't give you $50,000 of taxpayer money to show you the light.

Long live the first amendment and may those who respect it live even longer.

"Public safety"???? You must be kidding! Even the detective told Brunson, Blount etc. that there were no threats in anything he found after investigating the blog!

If you really think there was EVER any issue of "public safety" for Brunson etc. you really need to get some rest -- or at least go back & do some investigation of your own so you can see the truth of what actually took place!!!

I do know what took place in the blog b/c I followed it until we left FBC.

Typically the church cherishes the first amendment in order to be able to preach the WORD, not for personal gain.

But don't you see, the church was concerned about their own "personal gain" when they went after the Watchdog. The investigation was opened a day or two after the Chest of Joash drive in 2008. Apparently receipts weren't as high as hoped, so they had to "shut 'em down" in the (IMO) mistaken belief that it was this blog that caused the decrease in giving that year. One week Mac is dismissing this blog as a handful of disgruntled people engaging in "beauty shop gossip." The next he's blaming it on the decrease in giving to the biggest offering of the year. Which is it Mac?

Watchdog had been asking questions Brunson & Co. did not want to answer, so he began blogging. He was exercising his 1st Ammendment right to free speech. He never asked for donations or demanded that people give 10% of their income (undesignated) to the First Watchdog Church. He never claimed that if you didn't fork it over you wouldn't be blessed or that bad things would happen to you. That was Mac. Remember?

It was the church -- Mac, Blount, Hinson, and probably Soud -- who tried to violate Watchdog's 1st Amendment rights. We've seen how that worked out for the JSO. (Isn't there a cap on settlements with them?)

Now we'll see how it works out for the church. I agree with the others who've said any settlement should come straight out of the pocket of Mac Brunson. At least the bulk of it should. I think a significant amount should come from Hinson, Blount, and Soud. A message needs to be sent that if you're going to operate outside the law you're going to be held personally accountable, not that your employer will cover for you.

As far as I know no one is challenging the church's 1st Amendment right to preach the Word.

Public safety should always trump private speech.

Good grief. If the public's safety were at risk, why didn't Hinson at least interview the Watchdog once he learned his identity? This alone tells me Watchdog never posed any "threat" to Mac or the church. Mac simply couldn't take criticism.

To the ANON who said they followed the blog, just remember a blog can be edited, and edited it was and is frequently. Especially when remarks go over the top. This was especially true in the "hot" days of following around commenting on what Ms. Brunson was wearing, etc. That would freak most people out, to know that someone has access to your movements, even in your home community, e.g., the remarks about public safety. When someone feels threatened, just like when Rich's family felt embarrassed, whether it's warranted or not, it's there.

BTW, reading through the comments on the Times Union site should be enough to make any churchgoer anywhere shudder at what this has wrought. Was it worth it? I mean, to the Kingdom? Not to White because if he's a man of God, he will get over it, as will his family. But is it worth it to the Kingdom? Count the cost.

To the ANON who said they followed the blog, just remember a blog can be edited, and edited it was and is frequently.

Could we put this myth to rest once and for all? A Blogger blog can be "edited" in only one place, and that's the original post. No one's comments can be edited either by the commenter himself or by the blog owner. Comments can only be deleted.

This was especially true in the "hot" days of following around commenting on what Ms. Brunson was wearing, etc. That would freak most people out, to know that someone has access to your movements, even in your home community, e.g., the remarks about public safety.

I've read this blog on a near daily basis since its inception, and I don't recall any discussions like that.

BTW, reading through the comments on the Times Union site should be enough to make any churchgoer anywhere shudder at what this has wrought. Was it worth it? I mean, to the Kingdom? Not to White because if he's a man of God, he will get over it, as will his family.

From what I've read 99% of the people who comment on those T-U articles already had formed their opinions of FBC Jax and Christianity in general.

What "this" has wrought? Is it worth it? Why not ask Mac since it was he who "wrought" all this.

Did anyone notice that in the last days that people will have "teachers who tickle their ears" rather than pastors who preach the whole counsel of God and who tend to the sheep and can actually take criticism? The church as we knew it in the 40's and 50's is slowly disappearing before our very eyes. Sad but true. Good luck Watchdog and remember some of us are praying for you and healing in the church.

Congratulations Brother!It was obvious from the beginning that you were not seeking vindictivness. We hurt for the way your family was abused.

May this be a step in the right direction and may FBCJAX ("The Tail") Cease & Desistfrom wagging Jacksonville ("The Dog")

Where in God's Holy Word does anyone get the idea that The Holy Spirit intends for us to build empires of man (Mega-Churches)?Do the SBC Power Brokers still maintain that the Fundamentalist take over of the SBC (Coup?)was mearly a "Conservative Resurgancy?Do they still deny that many good people on both sides of the battle were hurt?

Is Saint Paige The Pious going to be crowned the SBC Pope at the next convention?

Sally Forth Brother Take Courage & procede with your litigation for the greater Glory of God & The Body of Christ.

We, at The Wartburg Watch, sleep a bit easier knowing that states might think a little more carefully before being used by self-centered pastors and designated thugs to trample on the First Amendment.

You have won one for us little guys and we are grateful from the bottom of our hearts. GO DOG!

I hope a certain pastor is sleeping a little uneasily this evening.Maybe he will get right before God and behave with some humility, a word that is lacking in the vocabulary of some of today's high-rolling pastors.

How many of these supportive comments are legitimate supporters, as opposed to being posts that you yourself add to increase the communication on this blog? As we know, you do consider yourself chosen by God Himself to ferret out those in the religious community who are wrong (according to you, anyway).

Have you considered writing a tell-all book about your case? I'm sure that as much as you enjoy being in the limelight, you wouldn't miss an opportunity to spread the "Good News" about your battle for the first-amendment. After all, it was a battle, wasn't it? Or, was it simply about a man who is so personally obsessed with Mac Brunson that you will stop at nothing to bring down the empire you feel he has established at First Baptist Church Jacksonville?I'll be sure to buy a copy once it hits the shelves at my local Dollar Tree.

How many of these supportive comments are legitimate supporters, as opposed to being posts that you yourself add to increase the communication on this blog? As we know, you do consider yourself chosen by God Himself to ferret out those in the religious community who are wrong (according to you, anyway).

October 21, 2010 6:52 PM

OUCH! Sounds like another spiritual member of First Baptist spitting out their venom. They can dish it out, but we are to turn the other cheek when they speak.

Today's news was great - abundantly clear FBCJ messed up good and we the taxpayers end up paying the bill. As Mac said, he was called here to reach the City of Jacksonville. :>)

While I agree that this pastor obviously has some issues, it is certainly apparent that continuing to bash the guy on here has done nothing to remove him. He still continues to do what the WD believes is wrong, and yet this blog continues as well.

Maybe you can branch out and start to talk about all the local church pastors. I'm sure Brunson isn't the only one who meets your criteria.

I wish I had a job where I could sit home all day too and do nothing but spread garbage on the computer. Hopefully that's ALL you do on your computer.

This Blog is what "lit the fuse" of this whole matter. There really is not enough "wrong" with pastor Brunson to warrant the incessant attacks.

By the way. thanks for wasting the taxpayers time and money with your pettiness. You accomplished nothing and you can expect no more than the condescension that wreaks within the settlement that you are so proud of. I can hear the JSO and lawyers now "just let the little man have his pound of flesh and send him on his way. Just hope and pray he does not stir up more trouble."

Mr. Rich had no business slinging mud at his pastor or the members of his church. You can try as hard as you like to justify the actions.

It is unfortunate that things unfolded in this manner and so many were harmed in the wake. Yes, you were one of those that were directly harmed. However, you brought it upon yourself.

I remind you that the church has a lot to be concerned with in the way of security issues.(not anyone specifically) I believe that Pastor's, deacons, and members have a duty to investigate any entity that might be of concern in order to ensure safety.

"This Blog is what "lit the fuse" of this whole matter. There really is not enough "wrong" with pastor Brunson to warrant the incessant attacks."@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

And I remind you that it was the "attack words" that the Pastor said to the reporter in the Florida Times Union in addition to Judge Soud's kind words that really "lit the fuse" You sound like one of the Discipline Committee members or one of their professional kids. :>)

And I remind you no mud has been slung here on this blog - we have asked questions and what has been expressed obviously has been spoken in truth.

For anyone who believes Mac's wife was really being stalked, just a thought...if you live in a gated community and you're being stalked while jogging...shouldn't you look INSIDE the gates? Also, how does one know their mail is being stolen? (unless it disappears for several days in a row... and once again, look INSIDE those gates) These seemed at the time and still seem like very lame attempts at trying to accuse WD. But hey, whatever works, right?

"I remind you that the church has a lot to be concerned with in the way of security issues.(not anyone specifically) I believe that Pastor's, deacons, and members have a duty to investigate any entity that might be of concern in order to ensure safety."

October 21, 2010 9:00 PM

If they are concerned about safety,then maybe they need to start at the top.Brunson himself!!!!!!This man(Brunson)is the source of all of the trouble experienced by Mr.Rich and the innocent members of FBCJ.He is no more and no less than a opportunist out to make as much money as possible for he and his family.It has nothing to do with God,and everything to do with with Mac.

Jesus stated "Out of the treasures of one's heart they speak".Mac's own habitual actions,or lack of,tells people all they need to know about this man.We ignore the teaching of Scripture to our own detriment.

Mac is not concerned about anybody but Mac.And until one is willing to understand this,they will continue to baffled by his actions!

Ooooh man. I was at FBC Dallas, when Mac-Daddy was here. So glad to know he is no longer here. He suddenly got his 'calling' to Jacksonville, right in the middle of constructing 'his vision' for this church. Left right in the middle of the $48M project.

That seemed like an integrity issue at the time, now I know for certain that integrity are not his virtues. Big Boy needs to pay for his unscrupulous behavior.

If integrity were not such an issue, he would humbly sought a resolution with Tom and his innocent family members. He still could, but that would take courage.

Mr. Rich had no business slinging mud at his pastor or the members of his church. You can try as hard as you like to justify the actions. ___________________________________

Translation: Mr Rich, nor any other member, has no right to ask this pastor any questions, ever. And if the pastor ignores you, you are to go quietly away. If you don't, he will preach angrily about it and paint himself as a victim and even have Patterson and Vines stand up for him. And if you still don't bow down, then he will slander you and even ban your wife to show his power. And if that doesn't work, then he will allow Soud and Hinson to get to work on you. And if that doesn't work...he will settle and pay up and his minions will blame it all on you. Mac's judgment day in court is coming. And it won't be for just $50,000.

My only question is will "the Brunson family" still be here when the church (or its insurer) has to pay out the millions. Or will he be like a college coach who leaves town for a better job and leaves his school behind on probation.

I remind you that the church has a lot to be concerned with in the way of security issues.(not anyone specifically) I believe that Pastor's, deacons, and members have a duty to investigate any entity that might be of concern in order to ensure safety.

October 21, 2010 9:00 PM

Now this is strange. We are to trust God when we give money to the institution to bless us financially but Mac does not trust God for security at church.

Lydia and others - church security is a real issue. Churches absolutely need to care for the safety of their pastor and congregations.

As I've said many times, even when the lawsuit was first filed, even when I approached the JSO before the lawsuit, I wanted to know WHY they subpoened my blog. I wanted to know what security risk my blog posed to take that drastic step. The response we received in writing from the city, well, let's just say it didn't have the right explanations in it.

I suspected the church obtained my info through some sort of subpoena power the moment I received my list of 16 sins the night before Thanksgiving 2008. It said I was "positively" identified. I wanted the church to tell me how I was positively identified, but they wouldn't. They could have picked up the phone and said "You want to know? We'll tell ya - the cops investigated you and told us your name." But for some reason, they didn't want to tell me that.

So one of the purposes of the lawsuit was to find out WHY, and sure enough after somewhere between 25 and 30 depos, we know why. And I'll share that information with my readers in the near future. It is an interesting story.

But suffice it to say it was not because of mail stealing, or "stalking" concerns of the pastors wife.

I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. There does not seem to be any admission of wrong doing on the JSO's part. I think that I am pretty close on that.

Your blog was set up to attack or expose Pastor Brunson.(take whichever side of that you want) If someone were threatened or actually harmed then you and the posters would make up some pretty reasonable personalities worth investigating. All bets would be off and every man for himself.

You must have at least given some thought to that potential liability when you began. You must have known that if anyone was hurt or threatened then you would likely get exposed in the fall out.

The police are effective and pretty good about protecting the innocent bystanders. However, they are not always surgically precise and innocent get hurt in the fall out of investigations or crossfire. Consequential damages... I believe. I am not suggesting that there were no other motivating factors involved in this case. Just some generalities.

My friends, there are reasons that neither anonymity nor privacy, are guaranteed in the bill of rights. You cannot guarantee privacy or anonymity, in a civilized society, at the expense of others freedoms and rights.

Anonymity, under the guise of privacy, might be nice for those that use the cloak of darkness to hide their true identities to perform their misdeeds. Start a blog to expose/attack...give up your privacy/anonymity.

It is intriguing that Mr. Rich would name a guy that called him a socio type on camera. Yet, he does not name the guy that called him a "coward". The guy that you named is bound by so many ethical and sociological norms that it is a near certainty that he will not bring counter suit. It seems to me that you picked your opponent very carefully.

Why would you pick one guy over the other? Certainly you do not believe that the guy you name was the only hand in exposing you and maybe not even the biggest participant. Perhaps he did not participate with your initial exposure at all. Who went public first? I do not really recall. Was it you or someone from the church? Who was it? Were you exposed before the list of sins? Do you really know who exposed you? I think maybe you went public first and exposed yourself?

Why do you hate Pastor Brunson so much? You name him in a suit that he likely had little to do with in the matter of "depriving you of your privacy/anonymity." He famously expressed his opinion of you, more in self-defense to be sure, he really did nothing to you personally...do I have that right?

I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. There does not seem to be any admission of wrong doing on the JSO's part. I think that I am pretty close on that.

Your blog was set up to attack or expose Pastor Brunson.(take whichever side of that you want) If someone were threatened or actually harmed then you and the posters would make up some pretty reasonable personalities worth investigating. All bets would be off and every man for himself.

You must have at least given some thought to that potential liability when you began. You must have known that if anyone was hurt or threatened then you would likely get exposed in the fall out.

The police are effective and pretty good about protecting the innocent bystanders. However, they are not always surgically precise and innocent get hurt in the fall out of investigations or crossfire. Consequential damages... I believe. I am not suggesting that there were no other motivating factors involved in this case. Just some generalities.

My friends, there are reasons that neither anonymity nor privacy, are guaranteed in the bill of rights. You cannot guarantee privacy or anonymity, in a civilized society, at the expense of others freedoms and rights.

Anonymity, under the guise of privacy, might be nice for those that use the cloak of darkness to hide their true identities to perform their misdeeds. Start a blog to expose/attack...give up your privacy/anonymity.

It is intriguing that Mr. Rich would name a guy that called him a socio type on camera. Yet, he does not name the guy that called him a "coward". The guy that you named is bound by so many ethical and sociological norms that it is a near certainty that he will not bring counter suit. It seems to me that you picked your opponent very carefully.

Why would you pick one guy over the other? Certainly you do not believe that the guy you name was the only hand in exposing you and maybe not even the biggest participant. Perhaps he did not participate with your initial exposure at all. Who went public first? I do not really recall. Was it you or someone from the church? Who was it? Were you exposed before the list of sins? Do you really know who exposed you? I think maybe you went public first and exposed yourself?

Why do you hate Pastor Brunson so much? You name him in a suit that he likely had little to do with in the matter of "depriving you of your privacy/anonymity." Other than he famously expressed his opinion of you, more in self-defense to be sure, he really did nothing to you personally...do I have that right?

sst - you ask great questions about investigations and threats and my blog. But you really don't need to guess as to the answers, because hours and hours of depositions were taken and I was there for every minute. I will be writing about these issues in the future.

About the Brunson vs. Soud question, you'll just have to wait and see. I don't know, but I think "coward" and "sociopath" are a world apart. Soud can express the opinion that I'm a coward, but it takes a qualified individual to assess whether a person is crazy and dangerous and a "sociopath".

"Anonymity, under the guise of privacy, might be nice for those that use the cloak of darkness to hide their true identities to perform their misdeeds. Start a blog to expose/attack...give up your privacy/anonymity."

How is it that those who whine and cry the loudest about "anonymity" very often refuse to publish THEIR full names when doing so?????

As for Pope Mac, if he lived 500 years ago, he would be of a kindred spirit with Johann Tetzel.

For those of you who might be historically challenged, Johann Tetzel was the indulgence salesman whose antics prompted Martin Luther to post his 95 Thesis on the Wittenburg Chapel door on October 31, 1517 which launched the Protestant Reformation.

"I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. There does not seem to be any admission of wrong doing on the JSO's part. I think that I am pretty close on that."

You would make a good little Nazi follower...never questioning the government's actions. After all, the Nazi's never admitted wrong doing.

stt wrote: "Anonymity, under the guise of privacy, might be nice for those that use the cloak of darkness to hide their true identities to perform their misdeeds. Start a blog to expose/attack...give up your privacy/anonymity."

Hey stt - don't quit your day job to become a lawyer. Have you heard? Tom challenged that belief of yours in Federal Court and WON! They even paid him $50,000 to prove it.

I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. __________________________________

The JSO wasn't involved. Robert A. Hinson was a member of the church, a paid bodyguard of Mac Brunson, a deacon, and get this...a member of the newly formed discipline committee. He did it and he was all of the above. You don't see any problem with that? LOL

I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. __________________________________

The JSO wasn't involved. Robert A. Hinson was a member of the church, a paid bodyguard of Mac Brunson, a deacon, and get this...a member of the newly formed discipline committee. He did it and he was all of the above. You don't see any problem with that? LOL

I can almost say with 100% certainty that if the JSO were involved, with approval, then it was borne of a perceived threat to the peace. __________________________________

The JSO wasn't involved. Robert A. Hinson was a member of the church, a paid bodyguard of Mac Brunson, a deacon, and get this...a member of the newly formed discipline committee. He did it and he was all of the above. You don't see any problem with that? LOL

There does not seem to be any admission of wrong doing on the JSO's part. I think that I am pretty close on that.___________________________________

You can't get any more of an admission of wrongdoing than to voluntarily pay $50,000 to someone after already spending another $25,000 or more defending the lawsuit. If the city really thought they did nothing wrong, they would have used that $50,000 to get this case heard by a jury and ruled on by a Federal judge.

Or they could have just apologized to Mr. Rich and Yvette before the suit was even filed. But for some reason, they decided it was a good idea to put hundreds of man hours and thousands of dollars into deposing Tom and his family and paying experts to read the blog, and ultimately deciding to pay him $50,000. Now they want to deny any wrongdoing?

And yet YOU still believe they did not do anything wrong? Wow. And O.J didn't do it either I bet?

Why would you pick one guy over the other? Certainly you do not believe that the guy you name was the only hand in exposing you and maybe not even the biggest participant.___________________________________

One guy is an arrogant bully, is heard nationally, is a CEO pastor who beats the sheep daily and couldn't handle ONE member of his chuch criticizing him. The other is a layman who honestly believes that anyone who fails to sign their name to criticism of another man is a coward. Plus Soud may be right in what he called Tom. Who knows? But Mac was, and is, wrong in maliciously slandering a man that cared to disagree with him and asked him a few questions. Soud may have been simply stating a true fact, or an honest opinion. Either way, that is a far cry from malicious slandering a critic to try and discredit him and harm him and his family.

Stay tuned for the next lawsuit. You will learn much about the differences of why Brunson was sued. :)

Why do you hate Pastor Brunson so much? __________________________________

Why is it considered "hate" to ask a pastor to answer a few questions sent privately and anonymously long before there was ever any blog? And when you are ignored and spit at for not signing your name, then the blog is the only option to get the issues discussed. The only problem is how to get readership to your blog...Hmmmm.

""Why do you hate Pastor Brunson so much? You name him in a suit that he likely had little to do with in the matter of "depriving you of your privacy/anonymity." Other than he famously expressed his opinion of you, more in self-defense to be sure, he really did nothing to you personally...do I have that right?""

This STT guy is just plain creepy with all his angst and anger. It's one thing to be a watchdog, but entirely different to be a mad dog.

""Why do you hate Pastor Brunson so much? You name him in a suit that he likely had little to do with in the matter of "depriving you of your privacy/anonymity." Other than he famously expressed his opinion of you, more in self-defense to be sure, he really did nothing to you personally...do I have that right?""

This is what the lemmings said about Hitler. He was not responsible for what the Brown shirts did. He did not even know...

Calling Watchdog a coward is totally incorrect. My dictionary Websters definition is " a person who has no courage". Watchdog to me has more courage than most men I know and have met over the last 50 years. You don't take on what he has unless you do have COURAGE. WE ALL will benefit from what Watchdog has done for us, our city, and hopefully the nation. God bless him and his family yesterday, today, and forever.

WD-You were a disruption and sewing discord in the church and the disciplinary committee was right to do what they did. Now you are trying to cash in with frivilous lawsuits. You ask why they settled. Because it is cheaper to settle than to litigate. You settled because you knew that would be the only way to get money, and that is why you are doing this, money! You are jealous of the salary of MB. I know that FBC Jax is glad that you have gone to be somebody else's problem. You are not bringing "transparancy". You are just a disgruntled, arrogant, and self absorbed sociopath. Oooooh. Lawsuit must be a comin'.

Anon - thank you. It is posts like yours that at this point, actually serve to help me make my case. When people like you say things like this, that you agree with your pastor about my mental state, it helps, it really does.

I assume you meant "sowing", and not "sewing", as I've never "sewed" anything.

And it is so humorous that people like yourself use the "jealousy" explanation. So sad.

"Anon - thank you. It is posts like yours that at this point, actually serve to help me make my case. When people like you say things like this, that you agree with your pastor about my mental state, it helps, it really does."

Exactly. But it is all they know. They have been "raised" and "mentored" on such thinking...in church no less! It is positively cultic!

This is why so many churches are spiritually dead. Good is evil and evil is good. It has been coming for a long time.

Your writings are detrimental to FBC and pastor Brunson, after all. You do not seem to care much about other's interests or well being. You have not expressed any remorse and you seem to have a strong sense of total self-righteousness. You seem to have a penchant for finding trouble. You seem to think that you are "saving the world" and that the harm you do is outweighed by the greater good that you think that you do. Many might agree that the thinking is a little grandiose and perhaps dillusional. If you actually think that you are a crusader then you might want to get that checked out.

I did not know of you before all of this. However,I am nearly certain that this might be the biggest blow up in your life, but, I doubt that it is the only one. Surely, at this stage you must understand that you are your own biggest problem. If you did not start the blog then there are no problems and no lawsuits that could have resulted. Clearly, there is a direct correlation to this blog and all of the trouble that you and your family might endure.You have acknowledged that the other party could counter as there is some basis for that. Of course, everyone knows that the other party is probably not going to counter for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with "legal" foundation for an action.

Perhaps "primadonna" or "narcissist" is a better description of your personality type.(Not necessarily my opinion just an observation)Those words might be regarded as more of an opinion rather than a fact. I don't think it would really matter if it were Brunson that called you a "Coward" and if the other party had called you the "sociopath." You would have gone after Brunson anyway. I really cannot believe that your only action is slander or libel for the name calling. Although, that would be your only play because who knows who leaked the exposure. I doubt very seriously that you could put your finger on who the leaker was.

I don't know about that one Dog. I think that the man was a bit hurt and was lashing out. I think that if others think you a sociopath it might have more to do with your blog posts rather than the words of a Baptist preacher who was the target of your writings.

"If the city really thought they did nothing wrong, they would have used that $50,000 to get this case heard by a jury and ruled on by a Federal judge."

Not necessarily true. Most attorneys prefer to settle than to go to court. The judges want the same thing since the courts are totally overloaded. A settlement is a sure thing, whereas going to trial is a crap shoot no matter how good of a case that you have.

In most cases, settlement is a better option because it allows one or both parties to move on. Either party could strongly feel that they could win in trial, but if they lose they have to face the consequences of the cost of trial and paying the winning sides attorneys fees.

Whether you or I like it or not a settlement is really a business decision that both sides negotiate because neither one wants to invest any more time and energy into a court resolution and with a settlement each side can mitigate their losses.

Are you a Christian? It's really hard to tell. But since you feel it's necessary to pontificate about the rightness or wrongness concerning the conduct of others, perhaps you should open a bit scripture.

Pastors, are subject to criticism. Both private and public. We all are. I can agree that we don't need to make a big deal out of every little thing. But, I've watched Pastor Mac. He's a man consumed with something and it doesn't appear to be the Holy Spirit. He's mean, spiteful, condescending and... his exegesis of scripture is pathetically poor. He accuses his congregation of "robbing God". Yet, he doesn't have a scriptural leg to stand on. None whatsoever. He is quite simply wrong about the NT tithe. If he was just wrong, I could give him some leeway, but it's the way he is wrong. Jesus didn't browbeat his followers. He reserved his judgment for the Pharisees. See the connection? This is where opening up the scriptures should be helpful to you. Read the account of what Jesus said to the Pharisees about their legalism.

It's not a good idea to make public statements you can't substantiate. You don't have a clue what role Mac had in the unmasking of WD. You are guessing. WD knows. He has been at every deposition. We do know that he called WD a "sociopath". Has Mac gained some special training in the diagnosis of the mentally ill, that I don't have any knowledge of? I can't find any of that on his list of accomplishments. He has no credentials whatsoever to make such a claim. None, zip, nada. Diagnosis without a license, is actionable!

Mac brought this upon himself. There is a really easy way to tell this. Instead of considering that his treatment of people is not proper, he might have tried listening. But... he didn't do that. He escalated and escalated this. It's like watching a two-year old having a temper tantrum behind the pulpit. Can you imagine Jesus behaving that way? Seriously, can you even for a second think Jesus would carry on waving His arms, shrieking and berating people over money? I can assure you Mac is aware that this has gotten so bad, that the violation of WD's rights under the Constitution of our country, were violated. Did he do anything to stop this? No he didn't. Someone is going to end up paying for this in money. It will be the church's insurer, or Mac's personal funds. It could even end up being the tithes and offerings that the good people of FBC Jax gave for ministry. This is not going to go well for him or the church.

But the real harm is what this shows unbelievers about people of faith in Jesus Christ. They will conclude that Pastors now will encroach on their liberties in a frenzied goal to gain riches. That should bring people into the churches dontcha think?

While you have your Bible open, what does the scripture say about storing up treasure on earth? And what does it say about where your treasure is and the condition (and place) of your heart?

The dog started the blog. No blog, no lawsuit. That is an indisputable fact and it is the main problem with the Dog's case. Just ask Tom and if he answers the question he will tell you that the fact that he started "it" is the biggest hole and of major concern to both he and his counsel in this matter. I do not need to know anything specific to see that coming.

The fact that Mac is not an expert is proof that his statement is opinion. Someone is making a mountain of a molehill. Dog is a public figure just like Mac. Neither party is paramount to the other at this point. Good luck trying to prove otherwise.

What exactly did Mac do to the dog prior to the Blog? Be precise. What did Mac do, personally, to Mr. Rich prior to the Blog?

That is right! Nothing.

As for tithing...someone has to foot the bill. It is too bad that only about 10% of a congregation are serious tither's and about 65% never drop a single dime in the offering plate.

If everyone tithed then preachers would never have to preach controversial money sermons. Every church that I have ever been a part of has the same set of circumstances when it comes to tither's.

Yeah, there are wolves out there looking to devour defenseless sheep. It is not like FBCJAX is out to bilk people or that the members are any more or less committed to furthering Christianity than other churches. Go and visit. Keep an open mind.

stt> You get what you pay for which includes what one puts in an offering plate. The amount and who gets it is a personal decision of the individual that places it in the plate. Where did you get the 10% and 65% figures?

stt - on the tithing issue: it is very disturbing to see a preacher misuse the Bible to guilt people to give more money to the budget, or to a special project. I'm not talking about the tithing doctrine, I'm talking about going to the Old Testament, as in Hagai, and making the leap from God judging Israel for not rebuilding the temple, to comparing that to the U.S. in 2010. Yet this is exactly what Mac Brunson did on 10/10/10.

I'm not the only one that sees it. Even Chris Rosebrough at the Pirate Christian Radio was flabbergasted at the misuse of God's word by Brunson.

Not necessarily true. Most attorneys prefer to settle than to go to court. The judges want the same thing since the courts are totally overloaded. A settlement is a sure thing, whereas going to trial is a crap shoot no matter how good of a case that you have.

In most cases, settlement is a better option because it allows one or both parties to move on. ___________________________________

Are you saying that the city will spend $25,000 defending a frivolous lawsuit against a detective, then offer to pay $50,000 as a business decision when they believe the city and the detective did nothing wrong?

The dog started the blog. No blog, no lawsuit. _________________________________WRONG! Starting a blog is not the cause of a lawsuit. The Brunson family needs to understand this. Will someone please explain it to them.

"Just ask Tom and if he answers the question he will tell you that the fact that he started "it" is the biggest hole and of major concern to both he and his counsel in this matter."___________________________________

Sounds like elementary school: "Well, he started it..." Did that excuse work then? No? It won't work now either.

Dog is a public figure just like Mac. ___________________________________

Amen! Where can I buy Dog's books, or listen to him speak, or find him on TV and radio, or see what organization he is the leader of, or donate money to his organization that pays him, and where is his next conference, and when can I travel with him on vacation? yes, they are both public figures. Well said stt! Excellent point.

As for tithing...someone has to foot the bill.___________________________________

WRONG! No one has to "foot the bill" for wife and son(s) to be hired on staff. No one has to foot the bill for millions and millions of bloated salaries, renovations, overhead, wasteful spending, Maurilio's services, TV advertising, and anything else mac decides to do. WAKE UP! Christians do NOT, NOT, NOT, have to "foot the bill" for your family empire!

If everyone tithed then preachers would never have to preach controversial money sermons. Every church that I have ever been a part of has the same set of circumstances when it comes to tither's.___________________________________

WRONG! If everyone tithed, the insatiable millionaires would build bigger buildings, hire more staff, take more trips, hire more consulting firms, buy more advertising and then preach "the tithe is just the beginning point" and "if 10% was under the law, shouldn't we do more under grace."

By the way, if every church has the majority of people not tithing, even though they are being taught it...what does that tell you? It tells me that the majority can't be fooled and are not as gullible as you boys wish they were. But keep beating them up. The more you beat the more they give. Now that is true of all churches. Amen?

Are you saying that the city will spend $25,000 defending a frivolous lawsuit against a detective, then offer to pay $50,000 as a business decision when they believe the city and the detective did nothing wrong?

Yes, because the cost to litigate frivilous lawsuits can run up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Also, the city could decide that it is worth doing to protect their image. It happens everyday. If we had a loser pay system where the loser would pay all court costs and lawyer fees resulting from their insane lawsuit, you would see a lot more litigation.

Tom knew all along the city would settle and that would give them the appearance of wrongdoing. A settlement does not equal an admission of wrongdoing. Quite honestly, this is chump change to the city. Usually the larger the settlement, the greater the chances of guilt. Although $75,000 is massive bucks to me, it is pennies to a municipality like Jacksonville.

WRONG! No one has to "foot the bill" for wife and son(s) to be hired on staff. No one has to foot the bill for millions and millions of bloated salaries, renovations, overhead, wasteful spending, Maurilio's services, TV advertising, and anything else mac decides to do. WAKE UP! Christians do NOT, NOT, NOT, have to "foot the bill" for your family empire!

Wake up Christians!!! No you do not have to "foot the bill" for the missionary in China. No you do not have to "foot the bill" for the missionary in the mountains of West Virginia. No you do not have to "foot the bill" for the service of a Pastor who prepares to exposit God's Word (regardless of what Paul said in II Timothy. What did Paul know?) Wake up, Christians, these things are not done on a have to basis (grundgingly). These things are done willingly (cheerfully). Therein lies the blessings of God.

To STT and other spiritual zombies, who worshipfully follows some guy on a platform:

Your Mac-O-Latern will get lit up nicely come court time. Why don't you just encourage Mac to settle this thing now, out of court, make an apology and let the fellowship avoid this nasty and needless routine?

Why the Baptist-Jihad against some one who asks valid, but unpopular questions? Why the Stalin-esque tactics to silence them?

This so much like the Spanish inquisition. You guys amaze and astound me with your mindless following of some guy with a microphone or TV image, droning away about money and strict adherance to twisted scripture.

I must have missed something. Dog admitted. in previous posts, that he never confronted Mac with his concerns and that he chose to air things anonymously and publicly.

I believe that the correct way to handle things is confidentially, directly, privately, and with a solution in hand. I have done that a few times at work and no one has ever outted me as a trouble maker. You only need to go with an open mind and make sure that you speak well and in an organized manner. Be prepared to see the other persons point of view.

Try it! It might work and if you do it properly the other party will respect you forever.

"I believe that the correct way to handle things is confidentially, directly, privately, and with a solution in hand. I have done that a few times at work and no one has ever outted me as a trouble maker. You only need to go with an open mind and make sure that you speak well and in an organized manner. Be prepared to see the other persons point of view."

Tom knew all along the city would settle and that would give them the appearance of wrongdoing. A settlement does not equal an admission of wrongdoing. Quite honestly, this is chump change to the city. Usually the larger the settlement, the greater the chances of guilt. Although $75,000 is massive bucks to me, it is pennies to a municipality like Jacksonville.___________________________________

Wrong again! The city's maximum liability exposure per F.S. 768.28 is $100,000. For them to pay $50,000 is a major, major deal. They do NOT pay such claims lightly. Keep trying anon.

Actually, you are really admitting how the insatiable money hungry preacher and his family view their congregations. "Either give more money to our budget here, or money is your God." Sad and pathetic. But not surprising coming from someone who believes they are entitled to "God's money" to support the whole family. :)

"I believe that the correct way to handle things is confidentially, directly, privately, and with a solution in hand. I have done that a few times at work and no one has ever outted me as a trouble maker. You only need to go with an open mind and make sure that you speak well and in an organized manner. Be prepared to see the other persons point of view."___________________________________

Well, more proof that some have learned nothing about why the blog was started in the first place.

And by the way, I don't care what you believe. If you don't want to handle things different from how you like them, then expect a blog to form and stay out there for years with a national readership. It is your choice. So accept it and move on please.

Like Jesus said, someone from the grave could come back and tell them the truth and they wouldn't believe it.

Christians are some of the most stubborn, blind, hard headed people ever. Nothing will ever change their mind when they believe they are right. Sheesh!

Please enlighten us all on why Mac felt he had to involve the city of Jacksonville's Sheriff's office in his quest to find out who was hurting his poor, itty-bitty feelings, or who had the nerve to disagree with him? Do you think that any Pastor has the right to infringe on your 1st amendment rights? Pastors don't want the government to tell them what to say when it comes to subjects like adultery, and homosexuality, so why should they not afford that same concern to someone who disagrees with them?

The fact is that Mac is a bully and he used his power to violate WD's rights. You cannot dispose of that fact. It's right in front of you. People like you only add to the sense of power, people like Mac have. I can't see that he can even tell right from wrong. For goodness sakes, he and the serial liar Ergun Caner collaborated on a book.

If you care about the Great Commission at all, you'd run for your life and find a church where the Gospel is taught as written, not manipulated to accuse Christians of selfishness.

You ask what exactly Mac did? I can tell you. He handled scripture in a dishonest way and he berated and accused people of robbing God. It's bad enough to treat your flock like disobedient children, but it's far worse to take the HOLY SCRIPTURES and misuse them to do it.

WAKE UP! Our churches and church leaders are guilty of the real criminal behavior. They take your money and spend it on private planes, PR firms, etc. They have invited the moneychangers into your temple and you should be just as angry as Jesus was. If you aren't then I can't imagine that you really have your eyes on Jesus. It looks to me like your eyes are on Mac. Dear God in Heaven, what an abomination that is.

WD had the courage to say enough of this. I'm grateful to him and his family. All of Christendom is being ridiculed because of the greedy and UnGodly leadership that shows the world, that Christians really are deluded and stupid for falling prey to these predators called Pastors. There are still very kind and loving Pastors out there. The kind who love to nurture their flocks with the truth of scripture and they'd never think of using it in such a heinous was as Mac does.

The church of Jesus Christ isn't on a hill in Rome covered with gold and jewels, and it isn't in mega auditoriums with every technical gadget we can use. Most of the television ministries are completely and totally corrupt. The church isn't about buying private jets and multi-million dollar homes or hiring PR firms. It is about Jesus who came to save us from our corruptible sin and who showed us how to live.

I don't want to compare Jesus to WD, but Jesus did tell us to run from the Pharisees... and Mac is a Pharisee. Also remember that it was these people who killed Jesus. WD simply rang the bell and I'm glad he did.

If you have any influence with Mac, do the right thing and implore him to apologize and take responsibility for his sin.

"Wrong again! The city's maximum liability exposure per F.S. 768.28 is $100,000. For them to pay $50,000 is a major, major deal. They do NOT pay such claims lightly. Keep trying anon."

That may be max insurance liability, but the award could have been much larger. The settlement was an easy decision for the city. Litigation is expensive. Insurance premiums can skyrocket in the event of an expensive litigation.

"Actually, you are really admitting how the insatiable money hungry preacher and his family view their congregations. "Either give more money to our budget here, or money is your God." Sad and pathetic. But not surprising coming from someone who believes they are entitled to "God's money" to support the whole family. :)"

What is pathetic is that you would bring the families of the pastors that you hate into your realm of hate. You are a sad pathetic human who is void of the love of Christ!

Would someone please inform her that privacy, nor anonymity is guaranteed in the constitution.

As far as I know, no one has deprived or sought to deprive WD from free speech...if that is what she is referring to. WD got exposed in a "now you see the public record now you don't." I think the boys played a little rough with Tom, but, you fight fire with fire.

You can do or say whatever you want to. The issue is whether you are willing to accept responsiblity for your words.

Speaking of dishonesty...

The question was "What exactly did Mac do to the dog prior to the Blog? Be precise. What did Mac do, personally, to Mr. Rich prior to the Blog?"

Since you changed the question, I presume that you agree that Mac really did not do anything to Tom...personally.

As a teacher trained in reading intervention, I think your reading comprehension could use some improvement.

Not only did I answer your question, so did WD. Mac used Holy Scripture in a dishonest way and that is gravely serious. Worse, his motive was to manipulate people and that's clearly sinful. The only thing worse would have been if WD didn't address this egregious act of dishonesty.

I'm sure you are familiar with 'All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing'. WD saw a serious wrong and set about to 'right it'.

You also need civics 101. While the Constitution doesn't use the word privacy, it's clear that government cannot act irresponsibily to invade the lives of others without a greater purpose. That's why we insist on subpoenas. Unless of course you think government can come into your home anytime they get an idea to do so.

But the issue here isn't even his privacy. Mac didn't care who it was, he just wanted it to stop and he used the power of government to violate WD's right under the Constitution to free speech. So he found out who was criticizing him to what end? Everyone knows that he went to extreme methods to find out who it was. It doesn't matter who it was, it matters that WD has the right to say it... so in the end, his identification is a secondary issue. It could have just as easily been me who said it. Free speech is a protected right and Mac used unlawful methods to try to get WD stopped. How'd that work out? It didn't work. I'd go so far as to say, it showed just how desperate Mac was and is.

Did you even read the court's ruling on the subpoena issue? Clearly the Court had serious problems with the actions of the DA.

Would it be okay with you, if I made up a bunch of unsubstantiated lies, to get government agents into your home, to search your private financial information, or what you feed your kids? I guess it would be since you seem to think the end justifies the means. The Framers would be appalled at that and if you don't know that fundamental fact about our country, then your education is seriously lacking. My third graders could figure this out.

I notice you don't have any problem remaining anonymous. Any particular reason? You want WD to provide his identity yet you have no problem using anonymity yourself. What a hypocrite.

"Would someone please inform her that privacy, nor anonymity is guaranteed in the constitution.

As far as I know, no one has deprived or sought to deprive WD from free speech...if that is what she is referring to. WD got exposed in a "now you see the public record now you don't." I think the boys played a little rough with Tom, but, you fight fire with fire. "

sst, what you're missing is that the courts are clear: the right to speak anonymously IS free speech. So to remove someone's anonymity against their will, to parties that the person does not want to know, IS TO BURDEN THE PERSON'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Certainly the govt has a role in doing this in many law enforcement scenarios, but they must have a legitimate purpose, one that will further the interests of the government. That is what this case is about. Did the detective's actions further a governmental interest in finding my identity and releasing it to the church, or was it a detective doing a favor for his church?

If it was the latter, then this should be of grave concern of every citizen, because someone's right to speak anonymously was violated and there could be a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

So that was the case, and that was what discovery for months was about, why experts were deposed on both sides, try to answer the simple (yet complicated) question: was the detective furthering a governmental interest in what he did, or was he sharing his govt power with his church by doing a favor on behalf of his church, to further their interests, and not the government's.

So it is a bit more complicated that you are making it out to be, and the questions are certainly much more important that what you and many others want to believe.

The dangerous things that Tom was saying about Mac could have endangered his life. By the baseless accusations of Tom, some wacko could have put Mac and his family in danger. You have to be cautious what you say in public about people. Tom was neither cautious nor caring. He had an agenda, and that was to oust Mac. His hatred for Mac blinded any good judgement he might have had. Katie is obviously a disciple of Tom's, so she will defend him to the bitter end. Katie should assume her biblical role and stop attempting to teach biblical principle over men.

You have not answered the questions yet. If it were Mac that manipulated the system and took the short-cut to get Tom's identity, it was a result of the blog entries. Facts are facts.

I have not seen a single fact that identifies Mac as personally and directly connected to actions on the part of the JSO. If there is a direct connection what is it? Has someone stepped forward and shown documents that link Mac directly? Is there a witness of those activities. I think not. Maybe Hinson acted alone and on his own accord or used an investigation opportunistically. Good luck finding otherwise.

Since you like the "other words" I will pose the question again.

What did Mac do to WD, personally, before the blog was started? Did Mac poke fun of Tom, insult him, or slice his car tires? Did he bring Tom up before some committee and declare him unfit to teach a Sunday School class or keep him off the Deacon board?

What did Mac do to WD, personally, before the exposure?

You can say that Mac brought this upon himself and he is a false teacher and all the other nasty accusations that you can dream up. You can say that Tom is pure gold and the best thing that has happened to Christianity since the King James Bible and neither is relevant to the legal actions, if they ever get off the ground.

You still will not answer the question.

Everyone understands who started this matter and what the root cause of all of the lawsuits is. That fact has to weigh heavily on Tom's counsel and his advice. If you think that Tom has not calculated the probabilities of success and failure, then you think him naive.

If you think that the fact that Tom started this matter is insignificant and juvenile, then you are naive.

"Katie should assume her biblical role and stop attempting to teach biblical principle over men".

Lame, lame, lame......

The Bible says that women should be silent "in church". This is a blog and it in no way even resembles a church. Where oh where is the praise band?

So, who would I be teaching Biblical principle to? If you have any problem answering that... see the OT teaching about Deborah.

I'm not teaching any Biblical principle because there is no principle here to be discerned. Scripture is crystal clear in this regard. If you think women shouldn't be teaching things to men at all... then you might want to read up on Priscilla.

It could be argued quite successfully that this isn't even a religious issue. It's a free speech issue. I spent 20+ years in the Navy defending your right or that of WD to say what you want without fear of recrimination. So think of me as your friendly Gulf war veteran and defender of the Constitution of this great country.

stt,

Who exactly do you think drafted the 2 discipline letters to WD? Do you really think that the Elders would send out such letters to any member of FBC JAX without Mac knowing about it first? If you do then that's evidence of how far you will go escape truth. Who exactly said "shut 'em down"?

If you are really that ignorant of the facts, then you'll deserve what you get in return. The Bible instructs us to be Bereans. I take that charge quite seriously. But if you want to follow the leadership of a man who cannot even use scripture properly, that is your problem.

...Letters come after the fact. If a Pastor knows of a member's insidiuous conduct and who is deliberately stirring up trouble, then he has a duty. Tom was costing the church, his church at the time, in more ways than just money.

The question is how he got the information in the first place. Did Brunson order someone or pay for the information? How much was Mac involved with in the uncovering? Did he approve something? I am sure that if he had foreknowledge he certainly might have been a cheer leader. I do not know and I have not seen anything that demonstrates Mac's involvement with the deed of unveiling the WD.

The problem that you have with blogging is that you cannot change the other person's statement or put words in their mouth.

The question is: What did Mac do to the WD before the Blog was started?

Since you will not answer and you want to change the question, then I will answer for you again.

Mac did nothing to WD prior to the start-up of this blog.

The lesson for everyone is to not expect the First Ammendment to protect your anonymity or privacy. Do not expect that your right to free speech can over-ride another's right's.

You have the right to say what you want about me and I have the right to recover any damages that you cost me. However, if my own actions are the root cause of my loss, I have diminished or removed my chance of recovery.

I believe that the framers of the constitution intentionally left out privacy.

By the way...in the end, Jesus's accuser's had to make themselves public knowledge. Their case against Jesus was just about as flimsy as WD's is against Mac.

Katie, you are attempting to teach biblical principle about tithing. If not on this particular blog, then certainly on other blogs. Are we not taught in scripture for women not to teach over men? Do you feel that God is a male shovenist? Or do you think there was a purpose for these lessons on proper roles in the Kingdom?

There are many women in the church that think the Bible is wrong and outdated when it comes to proper roles in the church. Where do you stand? Do you believe in the inerrency and infallability of Scripture? If not, that is all we need to know. If you do, then where does your attempting to use this platform as an avenue to "teach" fall into the demands of Scripture?

Clicker

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"